Case LawHigh Court › Harshita Chhawchharia v. Principal Commi...

Harshita Chhawchharia v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata & Ors

High Court 22 Nov 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Harshita Chhawchharia v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata & Ors
Date of order
22 Nov 2021
Assessment year(s)
2009-10
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Harshita Chhawchharia v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata & Ors, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

OD-2 W.P.O. No.1087 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAConstitutional Writ JurisdictionORIGINAL SIDE HARSHITA CHHAWCHHARIAVersusPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 22[nd] November, 2021. APPEARANCE:Mr.Sanjay Bhaumick, Adv.Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv.Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv.…for petitioner Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv.Mr. Madhu Jana, Adv.…for respondents The Court: Affidavit of service filed in Court be taken on record.Heard learned advocates appearing for both the parties. In this matter, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order ofrejection of the petitioner’s application for settlement under the Direct Tax VivadSe Vishwas Act, 2020 relating to assessment year 2009-10 on the ground thatthe reason of rejection passed by the Assessing Officer is bad and perverse on theface of it since the Assessing Officer has in its order of rejection recorded that noappeal filed or appeal is pending relating to the impugned assessment year whileit is on record as appears from the pages 87 and 88 of the writ petition that theappeal relating to the assessment year in question was pending before the HighCourt. Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Income Tax Authority is not in a position to contradict this allegation which issubstantiated by record. In view of this fact that keeping the writ petition pending and calling foraffidavits by respondents will be a futile exercise and no records could beimproved, and the interest of justice will be served if the impugned order ofrejection dated 25[th] January, 2021 is set aside with direction upon the AssessingOfficer concerned to consider the aforesaid application afresh under the DirectTax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 as it appears at page 89 of the writ petition inaccordance with law within eight weeks from date. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition being WPONo.1087 of 2021 is disposed of. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) sb/
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan